3.3 Frustration-Aggression Theory
3.3.1 Major Postulations of the Theory
Dollard et al. (1939: 7) contend that "the occurrence of aggressive behaviour always presupposes the existence of frustration and, contrariwise, that the existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression". In other words, the exhibition of aggressive behaviour always follows from a frustration-evoking impulse, while every action which evokes frustration is believed to result in some form of aggression.54 Dollard’s original theory posits that aggression occurs when there is an external impeding interference to some goal- response by an individual which generates an aggressive energy that is ultimately released through aggressive behaviour that is directed either toward the frustrating agent or
"displaced" in aggressive behaviour towards non-associated targets (Felson, 1992).
Frustration is a key concept in Dollard’s theory, conceiving frustration as “interference with the occurrence of an instigated goal-response at its proper time” (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, 1996: 269). That is, frustration implies the thwarting of a goal response, where a goal response refers to the reinforcing final operation in an ongoing behaviour sequence that is aimed at achieving some goals. In essence, frustration arises when a barrier is interposed between a person and certain goals they desire to achieve, leading to the mobilization of extra energy that flows over into the exhibition of generalized destructive or aggressive behaviour.
The term frustration does not only refer to the process of blocking a person’s attainment of some reinforcement, but also includes the target’s reactions to such blocking. As such, ‘being frustrated’ means that another party or circumstance has thwarted someone’s access to reinforcement, and that the reactions to such thwarting express annoyance (Berkowtitz, 1989;
van der Dennen, 2005).
Notably, scholars have adjusted the frustration-aggression hypothesis over time. These adjustments have followed criticisms relating to the broad generalizations of the theory in its
54 This latter part of the assumption was modified by Miller (1941) recognizing its overgeneralization since potential aggressive outburst may be effectively inhibited or frustration may in some cases, elicit alternative response that are not aggressive, showing that frustration is not a sufficient causal factor for aggression. Miller thus puts it that the second part of the hypothesis thus: “Frustration produces instigations to a number of different types of response, one of which is an instigation to some form of aggression”.
111
original forms. Some analysts highlight the cost consideration in the exhibition of aggressive response in a frustrating situation. Hence, they opine that in order for frustration to elicit aggression, the external costs of aggression must be minimal (Berkowitz, 1962), or that frustration is likely to elicit an aggressive response only when there is a cue on the actions facilitating aggression (Berkowitz 1964), or when the frustrating agent is seen as arbitrary or illegitimate (Pastore 1952). Similarly, Miller (1941) argues that potential responses to frustrating situation vary and that in some cases, aggression may be instrumental rather than just a contingent response based on thwarting. As such, frustrations do not always necessarily result in hostile or aggressive outbursts, just as potential outbursts may be inhibited or result in alternative actions like the pursuit of other more readily available re-enforcers.
Given criticisms of its original claims as being too general and making frustration appear to be both a necessary and sufficient condition for aggression, Felson (1992: 1) reconstructed the main assumption thus: “any form of negative affect or distress is likely to increase the likelihood of aggression”. Berkowitz (1989) explains that aversive events generally result in aggressive behaviour because they produce negative effects. Berkowitz suggests that psychological discomfort, depression, anxiety, and physical pain, as well as goal-blockage, instigates aggression. In substituting experience of aversion and negative effects for frustration, Berkowitz argues that arbitrary and illegitimate thwarting are most conducive to aggression because they produce a greater level of negative effect since a higher negative effect comes when people fail to experience or receive what they expect. In his cognitive-neo- associationist model, Berkowitz (1989) modified the theory thus: “frustration generates aggressive inclinations to the degree that they arouse negative effect like anger” (Berkowitz, 1989: 1). Following this modification, F-A accommodates cases in which frustration does not engender an aggressive response especially if it does not arouse anger in victims that could result from availability of other means of achieving the desired goal.
Some important conceptual elements in the frustration-aggression theory explicitly treated in Dollard et al (1939) concerns the redirection of aggression referred to as displacement, and catharsis. As van der Dennen (2005) explain, Dollard and his team emphasized that although an act of frustration instigates aggression primarily against the source of the frustration, aggression is also instigated against targets which are related to that source to some degree.
The strength of the aggression instigated towards the related target was seen to differ in tandem with the level of associative ties that exist between the actual or primary source of
112
frustration, and the secondary or alternative target. This notion of displacement is associated with the Freudian mechanism of displacement interpreted in terms of stimulus affinities.
Although the original source(s) of frustration constitutes the primary target for aggression, secondary subjects that are closely associated with the primary targets elicit similar reactions of aggressive actions. The strength of instigated aggression to the secondary target also increases or diminishes correspondingly as the similarity between the original and alternative target decreases.
Further on displacement, Dollard et al. argue that the more the level of punishment expected to follow from any contemplated aggressive response against a particular target by a frustrated person should he/she react aggressively towards the sources of frustration, the higher the likelihood that the 'inhibited' aggressive acts will be either replaced by an alternative course of action with less punishment-burden, and/or, the aggressive response is displaced upon other targets. This interplay is often referred to as the transfer of aggression, and shows that the inhibition of aggression is always incomplete as espoused in the frustration-aggression theory since a frustrated but response-inhibited individual (because such an inhibition is in itself a considered frustrating experience which heightens the frustration suffered), is motivated to seek alternative outlets for the expression of his or her pent-up aggressive inclinations.
As such, the only option for reducing instigations for aggression lies in the ability to express the feeling towards some object or targets. Hence, Zillmann (1979) argues that frustration must be viewed as a force that 'drives' the organism for an indefinite period of time, until he is opportune to perform the venting hostile or aggressive act. The latter analysis differ with Millers (1941) modification which suggests that frustration may instigate a non-aggressive reaction as well as aggressive action, presupposing thereby, that a non-aggressive reaction may help alleviate the need to carry out aggressive reactions. However, Dollard et al. (1939) points out that the reduction in the instigation to aggression is achieved, at least partially through any acts of aggression.
In addition, van der Dennen (2005) notes that Dollard’s proposition makes for an equivalence of forms of instigation-reducing option that may be an inversely related to the occurrence of a different form of expressed aggression, including overt versus covert, or self-directed as against outward-directed aggression. As the frustrated expresses aggression according to Dollard, there is a catharsis—the reduction in the instigation regardless of the status of the
113
target. In the context of frustration-aggression analysis, Dollar et al. uses the notion of catharsis in describing in general, the reduction in the level of instigation or urge to carry out aggression in a subject of frustration, regardless of the targets (whether primary or associated target). As such, the execution of a violent assault on the sources of frustration or any target is seen as having a cathartic effect even if it does not harm anyone (van der Dennen, 2005).
Social science scholars have applied the F-A theory in analysing wide-ranging issues concerning social order or violent behaviour. The theory is noted to have greatly influenced correlational studies of violence outside of the laboratory especially studies focusing on effects of chronic rather than situational frustration (Felson, 1992). It has been argued for example, that nearly all social ills especially those related to violence are associated with pervasive denials that people face around childhood and early adolescence. Most of these are believed to actually result in aggressive behaviour especially in aggression-permissive or conducive environments (Plack, 1969 cited in van der Dennen, 2005). Bandura and Walters (1959) found for example, that juveniles who have suffered incidence of frustration during the periods of childhood have a tendency to be more aggressive than children with less experience in frustration. Similarly, Blau and Schwartz (1984) observe that inequality can produce "pent-up aggression which manifests itself in diffuse hostility and violence" (Blau and Schwartz, 1984: 180). Its application is seen in such studies as between scenarios of political violence and relative deprivation (Feierabend and Feierabend 1966).
Other social scientists including political scientists have concentrated more on its basic assumptions as theoretical basis for linking deprivation with aggression and violence (van der Dennen, 2005). It has also played a central role for example, in the interpretation of stressors associated with the environment and their aggression effects. Mueller (1983) for example, suggests that stress has an effect on aggression because “it impedes behaviour, produces stimulus overload, and creates feelings of annoyance, irritability, and discomfort...associated with frustration or negative effects” (Meuller, cited in Felson, 1992: 2). Slettebak (2012: 164) also observes that “environmental shocks generate insecurity, frustration, scarcity of important resources, and weakened enforcement of law and order, which are frequently suggested to increase the likelihood of outbreaks of armed violence”.55 The interplay between climate change and violent conflict within the F-A framework is captured succinctly by Olaniyan, Francis and Okeke-Uzodike (2015) note that climate change has adverse effects on
55 See also Brancati (2007), Burke et al. (2009), Homer-Dixon (1999); Miguel, Satyanath & Sergenti (2004), Nel
& Righarts (2008).
114
peoples’ socio-structural conditions by altering the quality and quantity of resources available to them potentially resulting into violent conflict. Illustrating the transition, they point out that:
Climate change clearly puts pressure on the herders to move into other regions leading to localized conflicts and tensions. The aggressive behaviour of contemporary herders and farmers in the wetland areas are due to high level of frustration. Here, the frustration is two-way:
the herders are fleeing their traditional arid zones towards wetter places and are frustrated by dwindling pastures that sustain their means of livelihood. Upon reaching the wetter regions, their cattle consume the crops of farmers, who in frustration, respond by attempting to kill off the destructive animals or drive out the newcomers. Revenge missions of grazers result in circles of violence.
In other words, the basic source of frustration experienced by both parties is traceable to climate change, which is caused both by human and natural factors (Olaniyan et al. 2015: 56).